The Watering Hole

That's why my name looks like BONER!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026010-503544.html

The leader also reiterated his promise from the GOP's "Pledge to America" to reduce spending to 2008 levels. The "Pledge to America" document released earlier this year was lacked specifics as to how to get back to those spending levels. Boehner said today the House would start by cutting its own budget, though that would make an exceedingly minor dent in the deficit.

"Then we'll turn our attention to the rest of the budget," he said, "including killing the health care law... We can't borrow and spend our way to prosperity."

The health care law is projected by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office to reduce the deficit, not increase it.

Who cares what the projections are? Your the tool. My friend.

Hookbender — Dec 18, 2010Who cares what the projections are? Your the tool. My friend.

You really going to defend John Boehner? Dude. That guy is a documented liar, and lazy and stupid on top of it. And that's not even considering the fact that he's a Republican.

The projections are non-partisan. Boehner's like pretty much 95% of the Republicans in Congress: too lazy to know anything, too partisan to give a shit about facts or what's best for their constituents. He's their idiot leader for a reason.

If the GOP really gave a shit about the deficit, they would have let the tax cuts expire, or at the very least, used the Obama plan and let them expire for the people who make more than $250,000/yr, because those are the most expensive part...

Simple as that.
Tripper

Hookbender — Dec 18, 2010Who cares what the projections are?

Only rational intelligent people.

Hookbender — Dec 18, 2010Who cares what the projections are? Your the tool. My friend.

Wow, what a brilliant retort.

Projections of the CBO are what we go on in every aspect of budgeting.

Then maybe you should check the budget out. The debt we have, etc. You might then have a better understanding of my position.

All those deficits were clearly laid out by the CBO--they're pretty much right when they estimate.  It's not their fault that politicians choose to incur the debts anyway, to go ahead with ridiculous tax cuts in a good economy, etc.

Well now you bitch about Obama adding to the deficit with tax cuts on top of around 800 billion in spending and counting.

Hookbender — Dec 21, 2010Well now you bitch about Obama adding to the deficit with tax cuts on top of around 800 billion in spending and counting.

Thats the republicans fault

You think we'd even be talking about tax cuts if Bush hadn't instituted them in the first place? Once you put a tax cut in place, it's next to impossible to reverse.  You tell me how smart it is to allow the Senate to go into stalemate for the next two years just to get your way on taxes on the rich.  It seems like there's a lot we need to do, but that just might be me.

Fer chrissakes, next you're going to tell me that "if only Obama hadn't invaded Iraq and Afghanistan."

He's on cleanup duty from the Bush presidency, and the Bush presidency is the equivalent of the Deepwater Horizon + Exxon Valdez all at once.  US administrations will be cleaning up from the Bush presidency for the next 25 years, it was a disaster of unparalleled size and scope.  

Maybe if you go get Bush's book, it will seem like it was pretty okay though.

charger — Dec 21, 2010You think we'd even be talking about tax cuts if Bush hadn't instituted them in the first place? Once you put a tax cut in place, it's next to impossible to reverse.  You tell me how smart it is to allow the Senate to go into stalemate for the next two years just to get your way on taxes on the rich.  It seems like there's a lot we need to do, but that just might be me.

Fer chrissakes, next you're going to tell me that "if only Obama hadn't invaded Iraq and Afghanistan."

He's on cleanup duty from the Bush presidency, and the Bush presidency is the equivalent of the Deepwater Horizon + Exxon Valdez all at once.  US administrations will be cleaning up from the Bush presidency for the next 25 years, it was a disaster of unparalleled size and scope.  

Maybe if you go get Bush's book, it will seem like it was pretty okay though.

It's really not an additional tax cut, it's extending the current rate and not raising taxes. However, some taxes will be cut by Obama in addition to extending the current tax rates. Maybe you failed to see the real picture here. And the easiest and best time to raise taxes would be now....to simply let the Bush tax cuts expire. I'm not for that, just saying...

It wouldn't be much worse than Obama fucking around with healthcare for over a year and ignoring the horrible economy, housing market, unemployment rates, etc. But who cares about that right? And no one knows how long a fight it would be concerning raising taxes on the rich. This President is suppose to be about change. He's really turning out to be about the same instead.

Do you realize your blaming Bush and defending Bush in the same breath?

No, I'm not defending Bush.  Those taxes should never have been cut.  That was the single worst thing that could have happened to our deficit growth over the last ten years.  Add in a couple wars and no one watching the banks, and voila... it's like magic.

As for Obama, yeah, he could let the tax cuts expire for everyone.   But right now?  Even I don't think the tax cuts should expire for those making less than, say, 150k.  

People get exactly what they deserve.  The people voted for Republicans.  And they are getting Republicans-they got the tax cuts they two years of tax cuts and a whole lot of talk about budget cuts that will never happen.

As for the rest of your argument, it's the same old shit. You think that maybe Obama could have fixed the economy if he hadn't done healthcare.  Yeah, sure.  Also, he could have given us all laser eyesight.  Because, really, the economy was an easy fix, if Obama had just worked on it, right?

Okay, genius, you tell me.  Why is it that the economy HAS recovered--last quarter was a record-breaking quarter for US corporate profits.  By any definition, that is recovery. So--why are the businesses not hiring?  You tell me what it is that Obama did or did not do that made it possible for business to make shitloads of money with less people, and see no need to rehire workers to keep that money flowing. You tell me why it is Obama fault that businesses who have money won't hire.

charger — Dec 22, 2010No, I'm not defending Bush.  Those taxes should never have been cut.  That was the single worst thing that could have happened to our deficit growth over the last ten years.  Add in a couple wars and no one watching the banks, and voila... it's like magic.

As for Obama, yeah, he could let the tax cuts expire for everyone.   But right now?  Even I don't think the tax cuts should expire for those making less than, say, 150k.  

People get exactly what they deserve.  The people voted for Republicans.  And they are getting Republicans-they got the tax cuts they two years of tax cuts and a whole lot of talk about budget cuts that will never happen.

As for the rest of your argument, it's the same old shit. You think that maybe Obama could have fixed the economy if he hadn't done healthcare.  Yeah, sure.  Also, he could have given us all laser eyesight.  Because, really, the economy was an easy fix, if Obama had just worked on it, right?

Okay, genius, you tell me.  Why is it that the economy HAS recovered--last quarter was a record-breaking quarter for US corporate profits.  By any definition, that is recovery. So--why are the businesses not hiring?  You tell me what it is that Obama did or did not do that made it possible for business to make shitloads of money with less people, and see no need to rehire workers to keep that money flowing. You tell me why it is Obama fault that businesses who have money won't hire.

If they shouldn't have ever been cut, why not, at least, restore them to their original rate? At least for the wealthy, what ever that is? So we should never cut taxes unless times are bad? Never when times are good?

So you don't think the cuts should expire for those making less that $150? But the cuts should have never happened? Ahhhh, ok. :-/

I doubt he could have fixed it this quick. I don't doubt that was a huge mistake in timing and a whole years worth of valuable time, gone. The economy was more important at the time. No question about it.

I don't know why businesses aren't hiring. I'd have to read up on that one. I would guess that businesses are keeping their money until they see the economy improve. :D  

I suggest you do read up on it.

Google "record profits":

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=record+profits

Here's a sample.
Record profits and record unemployment: Nothing's trickling down
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich-s-Blog/2010/1215/Record-profits-and-record-unemployment-Nothing-s-trickling-down

The Big Money economy is booming. According to a new Commerce Department report, third-quarter profits of American businesses rose at an annual record-breaking $1.659 trillion – besting even the boom year of 2006 (in nominal dollars). Profits have soared for seven consecutive quarters now, matching or beating their fastest pace in history.

If they shouldn't have ever been cut, why not, at least, restore them to their original rate? At least for the wealthy, what ever that is? So we should never cut taxes unless times are bad? Never when times are good?  

Yeah, why not?
Because the Republicans vowed to block every bill that comes through the Senate until the tax cuts were extended for everyone, including the rich?  You honestly missed the last twenty news cycles completely?

Hookbender — Dec 23, 2010
If they shouldn't have ever been cut, why not, at least, restore them to their original rate? At least for the wealthy, what ever that is?

This passed in the house but not in the senate where it got 53 votes, not the 60 which is now needed.  The vote on extending it to a mil a year didn't pass either.  

The "conservatives" did not vote for middle class tax cuts only as their one platform is tax cuts for all that swell for the super rich.  

No one, as far as I could see, even brought up restoring everyone's tax rates to the Clinton levels.

charger — Dec 23, 2010I suggest you do read up on it.

Google "record profits":

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=record+profits

Here's a sample.
Record profits and record unemployment: Nothing's trickling down
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich-s-Blog/2010/1215/Record-profits-and-record-unemployment-Nothing-s-trickling-down

The Big Money economy is booming. According to a new Commerce Department report, third-quarter profits of American businesses rose at an annual record-breaking $1.659 trillion – besting even the boom year of 2006 (in nominal dollars). Profits have soared for seven consecutive quarters now, matching or beating their fastest pace in history.

If they shouldn't have ever been cut, why not, at least, restore them to their original rate? At least for the wealthy, what ever that is? So we should never cut taxes unless times are bad? Never when times are good?  

Yeah, why not?
Because the Republicans vowed to block every bill that comes through the Senate until the tax cuts were extended for everyone, including the rich?  You honestly missed the last twenty news cycles completely?


I'm not disputing big corporations aren't doing well. That has nothing to do with the middle class or below middle class. Who cares what "big money" corporations are doing in the context of this discussion. You bring that up way to much. Only the republicans would consider this some great achievement. The middle class and poor are taking the big licks on the poor economy, as usual.

What I would need to read up on is the logic behind big corporations not hiring, if anything. If I owned a big corporation, I damn sure wouldn't be expanding my business right now, especially if my business were driven by sales to the middle class and poor. And especially if the economy was in the shitter.

I'm pretty sure you know a lot more about these issues than I, but you come at some of these things at such a strange, odd, and every once in a while like now, wrong angle it's surprising.  

OK. So the pubs decided to block everything until, or unless, the tax cuts were extended. Now the President, Obama, agrees with them. So what the fuck is your point man? Obama, just a few months ago, was saying how bad the extension of the cuts would be. I really think you just like to argue sometimes because you don't make much sense.  

Hook is very confused.

Obama was defeated by the republicans -
The people voted for extending tax cuts for the rich it in November - that's what the Republicans say their voters mandate was for (whether you intended that or not)

The republicans delivered an ultimatum - extend tax cuts for the rich or they will block every piece of legislation in an act of scorched earth political revenge,

Including letting the tax cuts expire for the middle classes and below if they didn't get their way.
Tax cuts for the rich was their non-negotiable issue.

Do you understand that ? - Given all the problems their "key" issue was extending tax cuts for the rich
So much so they were prepared to let the tax cuts expire for the likes of  you if they did not get their wish.



He could have shamed them into voting against the extension of tax cuts for 98% of Americans
and attempted to get a vote on those tax cuts  through in  the next two years leading up to the next election.
Republicans voting against the middle classes because they are the pro-rich party would be a fertile political position for him to exploit.

If politics was his only concern that would have been the right thing to do, wage war back on republicans in the manner they chose to exploit.
Put them to their own sword.

Obama chose not to do that - he capitulated on it and called a compromise,

Why do you think he did that ?

The republican position on tax was essentially akin to their pro-life wing holding the nations kids  hostage to demand an end to abortion or the kids will die.

i.e. If the taxes of the rich rise - then they will make sure everyone elses do.

Given it's xmas - it  is very King Herod of them

fingers — Dec 24, 2010Hook is very confused.

Obama was defeated by the republicans -
The people voted for extending tax cuts for the rich it in November - that's what the Republicans say their voters mandate was for (whether you intended that or not)

The republicans delivered an ultimatum - extend tax cuts for the rich or they will block every piece of legislation in an act of scorched earth political revenge,

Including letting the tax cuts expire for the middle classes and below if they didn't get their way.
Tax cuts for the rich was their non-negotiable issue.

Do you understand that ? - Given all the problems their "key" issue was extending tax cuts for the rich
So much so they were prepared to let the tax cuts expire for the likes of  you if they did not get their wish.



He could have shamed them into voting against the extension of tax cuts for 98% of Americans
and attempted to get a vote on those tax cuts  through in  the next two years leading up to the next election.
Republicans voting against the middle classes because they are the pro-rich party would be a fertile political position for him to exploit.

If politics was his only concern that would have been the right thing to do, wage war back on republicans in the manner they chose to exploit.
Put them to their own sword.

Obama chose not to do that - he capitulated on it and called a compromise,

Why do you think he did that ?

I actually think that post is pretty funny.

What's the funny part?

The whole damn post.

How so?

Just a few months ago, Obama was talking about how bad the tax cuts would be. Now, a few months later, they are all the sudden the miracle fix. Obama didn't compromise, he's just playing a game, and losing badly. The only thing is, it's the U.S. that will pay the price because of another week willed Mr. Change...ahhh fuck that...politician.

Compromise my ass. ;D ;D ;D

fingers — Dec 24, 2010Hook is very confused.

Obama was defeated by the republicans -
The people voted for extending tax cuts for the rich it in November - that's what the Republicans say their voters mandate was for (whether you intended that or not)

The republicans delivered an ultimatum - extend tax cuts for the rich or they will block every piece of legislation in an act of scorched earth political revenge,

Including letting the tax cuts expire for the middle classes and below if they didn't get their way.
Tax cuts for the rich was their non-negotiable issue.

Do you understand that ? - Given all the problems their "key" issue was extending tax cuts for the rich
So much so they were prepared to let the tax cuts expire for the likes of  you if they did not get their wish.



He could have shamed them into voting against the extension of tax cuts for 98% of Americans
and attempted to get a vote on those tax cuts  through in  the next two years leading up to the next election.
Republicans voting against the middle classes because they are the pro-rich party would be a fertile political position for him to exploit.

If politics was his only concern that would have been the right thing to do, wage war back on republicans in the manner they chose to exploit.
Put them to their own sword.

Obama chose not to do that - he capitulated on it and called a compromise,

Why do you think he did that ?

Fucking brilliant.  Said pretty much everything I've been trying to say for the last month.

Hookbender — Dec 24, 2010
I'm not disputing big corporations aren't doing well. That has nothing to do with the middle class or below middle class. Who cares what "big money" corporations are doing in the context of this discussion. You bring that up way to much. Only the republicans would consider this some great achievement. The middle class and poor are taking the big licks on the poor economy, as usual.

Dude, what are you arguing then?  You say "Obama should have focused on the economy instead of healthcare."  

I then post how, for 7 quarters, corporate profits have been rocketing upwards, how they are now at record levels.  And by the waT, this is not just big corporations.  This includes everyone.  This is "corporate profit" full stop.  What makes you think it's just big corporations making shitloads is beyond me.  But I digress--What exactly did you want Obama to do for the economy that he didn't do?  Make companies hire people?  They are right back to making shitloads of money.  That you blame OBAMA for them not hiring is completely asinine.  A lot of these companies realized that they could cut people, freeze salaries, reduce hours and benefits, and then make sure their workers feel thankful they even HAVE jobs, and, guess what? they can make just as much money and more with those fewer workers, working harder, being more productive.  So, they aren't going to rehire--because profit is more important to them than patriotism.  And yet, you still think that's Obama's fault?  That he's somehow making them not want to hire?  Because Obama preaches greed and the message has resonated with them?  

What I would need to read up on is the logic behind big corporations not hiring, if anything. If I owned a big corporation, I damn sure wouldn't be expanding my business right now, especially if my business were driven by sales to the middle class and poor. And especially if the economy was in the shitter.

Then you are just as bad as them.  Aren't you proud.  And I reiterate--the economy is NOT in the shitter for corporations right now.  The economy is booming.  It's kicking much ass.  People are making killings out there.  Corporate profit is at record levels--you don't seem to understand how big a deal that is.  It's a big deal.

Give me one reason why not hiring seems like a smart thing to you.  Any idiot with a 5th grade education knows that the more people who have jobs, the more people who can buy things.

Hookbender — Dec 25, 2010Just a few months ago, Obama was talking about how bad the tax cuts would be. Now, a few months later, they are all the sudden the miracle fix. Obama didn't compromise, he's just playing a game, and losing badly. The only thing is, it's the U.S. that will pay the price because of another week willed Mr. Change...ahhh fuck that...politician.

Compromise my ass. ;D ;D ;D

"Miracle fix"?  WTF are you talking about?

One minute, or month ago, tax cuts bad. Next month, they are needed to help fix the economy.

charger — Dec 25, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1292641000/0#15 date=1293226008]
I'm not disputing big corporations aren't doing well. That has nothing to do with the middle class or below middle class. Who cares what "big money" corporations are doing in the context of this discussion. You bring that up way to much. Only the republicans would consider this some great achievement. The middle class and poor are taking the big licks on the poor economy, as usual.

Dude, what are you arguing then?  You say "Obama should have focused on the economy instead of healthcare."  

I then post how, for 7 quarters, corporate profits have been rocketing upwards, how they are now at record levels.  And by the waT, this is not just big corporations.  This includes everyone.  This is "corporate profit" full stop.  What makes you think it's just big corporations making shitloads is beyond me.  But I digress--What exactly did you want Obama to do for the economy that he didn't do?  Make companies hire people?  They are right back to making shitloads of money.  That you blame OBAMA for them not hiring is completely asinine.  A lot of these companies realized that they could cut people, freeze salaries, reduce hours and benefits, and then make sure their workers feel thankful they even HAVE jobs, and, guess what? they can make just as much money and more with those fewer workers, working harder, being more productive.  So, they aren't going to rehire--because profit is more important to them than patriotism.  And yet, you still think that's Obama's fault?  That he's somehow making them not want to hire?  Because Obama preaches greed and the message has resonated with them?  

What I would need to read up on is the logic behind big corporations not hiring, if anything. If I owned a big corporation, I damn sure wouldn't be expanding my business right now, especially if my business were driven by sales to the middle class and poor. And especially if the economy was in the shitter.

Then you are just as bad as them.  Aren't you proud.  And I reiterate--the economy is NOT in the shitter for corporations right now.  The economy is booming.  It's kicking much ass.  People are making killings out there.  Corporate profit is at record levels--you don't seem to understand how big a deal that is.  It's a big deal.

Give me one reason why not hiring seems like a smart thing to you.  Any idiot with a 5th grade education knows that the more people who have jobs, the more people who can buy things.


I think you need to read your own post. You even put a quote in your post . First words, "Big Money corporation". Then read all the google shit.

I didn't say I blamed Obama for them not hiring. It's basic business survival 101.

From a business standpoint, in a shaky economy, I wouldn't hire or expand my business until things turned around. When the big business starts hiring and expanding, you'll know the economy is turning the corner. Money isn't moving. Banks aren't lending. The government is increasing how long you can get unemployment, which takes a little of the urgency away from people who are jobless. The housing market is shit, which keeps construction down, contractors down etc. A lot of the factors of the economy are not doing well at all.

Hookbender — Dec 25, 2010One minute, or month ago, tax cuts bad. Next month, they are needed to help fix the economy.

This is the conservatives' position put forth by the pubs.  They didn't vote for what you wanted, tax cuts for all up to 250k of your income, so that couldn't advance to Bambam's vote which is sign or veto.

Do you understand how our gov is setup?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

You know what?  I'm getting fucking TIRED of watching John Boehner cry.  Seriously, you don't see Obama crying, and if anyone's got a reason to it's him.  But Boehner is like a girl watching The Notebook.  

Drunks cry...especially when they're drunk with power.

Hookbender — Dec 25, 2010[quote author=fingers link=1292641000/0#16 date=1293233037]Hook is very confused.

Obama was defeated by the republicans -
The people voted for extending tax cuts for the rich it in November - that's what the Republicans say their voters mandate was for (whether you intended that or not)

The republicans delivered an ultimatum - extend tax cuts for the rich or they will block every piece of legislation in an act of scorched earth political revenge,

Including letting the tax cuts expire for the middle classes and below if they didn't get their way.
Tax cuts for the rich was their non-negotiable issue.

Do you understand that ? - Given all the problems their "key" issue was extending tax cuts for the rich
So much so they were prepared to let the tax cuts expire for the likes of  you if they did not get their wish.



He could have shamed them into voting against the extension of tax cuts for 98% of Americans
and attempted to get a vote on those tax cuts  through in  the next two years leading up to the next election.
Republicans voting against the middle classes because they are the pro-rich party would be a fertile political position for him to exploit.

If politics was his only concern that would have been the right thing to do, wage war back on republicans in the manner they chose to exploit.
Put them to their own sword.

Obama chose not to do that - he capitulated on it and called a compromise,

Why do you think he did that ?

I actually think that post is pretty funny.


You have a champion who also thinks reality is pretty funny.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrID_N_FQ_o&NR=1